Reader Interactions

Comments

Bravo Jeff! The day after is now and it is incumbent of those distressed by the over politicization of the communal process to add their public voices in defense of Federation’s historic role. It also behooves many of our traditional partners in Israel to do the same and acknowlege that boundaries have been crossed.

Mr. Solomon is correct that we at Federation always need to think about how our actions will affect the community and our ability to provide social services, and to the extent a Federation action has the potential to be viewed as divisive, then a healing plan needs to be in place for the morning after. But, what Mr. Solomon fails to recognize is that given the demands of many, not just major, donors to take action against the JCPOA, the choice to not take a position would be viewed as divisive by the many who wished Federation to take a position, and would put those gifts every bit as much at risk as those gifts by donors who wished that Federation not take a position. And, if Mr. Solomon is correct that the fundraising of the Federations is now dominated by major donors who tilt in favor of action against the JCPOA, then Federations put their social services far more at risk by failing to heed the wishes of those major donors. The issues of avoiding some divisiveness of the community and protecting social services are not the same, and in this matter may in fact be in conflict. Finally, I would observe, having sat through the recent vote at a large Federation entailing very lengthy, but always civil, discussion, that many of our most liberal board members, who significantly outweigh conservative board members and who are otherwise staunch supporters of the President, voted to oppose the JCPOA. Further, the American Jewish Committee and, particularly, the ADL, are left of center organizations and still voted against the JCPOA. Thus, it is not at all clear to me that this action is nearly as divisive as critics would like to portray it, particularly in communities where a healthy and deliberative process was followed, and I expect that in most cases, with proper explanation and a clear communications strategy, the vote will have a very limited impact on the fundraising abilities of the Federations..

It is a shame that you personally attack those who believe Federations should make statements against the JCPA as the “tyranny of the major donor” and “unenlightened”. Unfortunately, the JCPA is a political issue but it is for Americans and for Jewish Americans an issue that goes to your statement of federations as guardians of human life. Iran and its its role in the world and threshold nuclear state make it so. There is no position federations can take, for against or no comment, that can avoid that fundamental question. Let us do so with mutual respect. In all that Federtations do, let’s bring Jewish values to life. As you say, there was a long history before JCPA and there will be one afterwards. Best regards, Eric Zachs, Hartford, CT

Jeff, thank you for saying this. The Iran nuclear agreement is an issue where individuals have different political judgments as to the best way to achieve an end that everyone agrees upon, based on values that we all share. Since it is clear from both polling and public responses that the Jewish population is divided almost down the middle on the issue, I think it is a major, self-inflicted mistake for federations to abandon an educational and convening role in favor of taking a political stand that leaves half the population they purport to serve feeling unrepresented. As you note, the Jewish community is “blessed” with numerous organizations that are speaking out on the nuclear agreement. If federations fear that they will be seen as irrelevant if they don’t take a stand on this issue, I suggest that they focus more on revitalizing the work they should be doing, rather than further dividing an already divided community in one of the few areas — tzedakah — where we can and should come together.

Thank you, Jeffrey, for this clear articulation of the fundamental role of Jewish federations. As the editor of J., the Jewish publication for the San Francisco Bay Area, I’m proud of our local federations in San Francisco and the East Bay for staying out of the Iran deal argument for precisely the reason you state: reasonable people in our Jewish community are coming down on both sides of the argument, and it is not the business of federation to divide us on this highly politicized issue. Here’s my column on our local federations’ stance: http://www.jweekly.com/includes/print/75322/article/the-column-bay-area-federations-pick-the-right-side-on-iran-dealneither/

While I can well imagine that federation boards and executives are under substantial pressure — stage-managed by Israel’s Prime Minister and his AIPAC allies — to actively oppose the Iran deal, I full agree with Jeff that it’s a huge mistake for federations to take such intensely political and largely partisan positions. As a former federation director, I would have much rather mounted a vigorous goal-line defense of why federation should not take a position on this than try to later justify it later to the many in our communities who will be outraged by it. Regardless of the outcome in Congress, it’s hard to exaggerate the damage that’s been done within the American Jewish community, to the federation movement and to American-Israeli relations.

It’s odd to us associated with Chicago’s federation that advocacy is absent from the four functions of federations the author mentions. For decades we have advocated and educated our state and congressional legislators concerning a myriad of issues that contain political fault lines. On issues pertaining to Iran we have lobbied for years, without anyone claiming we are dividing our community.

Certainly federations reflect–and risk exacerbating–existing divisions. But given strong, democratic governance they also provide a forum for bridging division. In Chicago’s case, the significant minority of board members who opposed the federation taking a stance on the Iran accord modeled bridge building by stating that they would accept the will of the majority.

I take issue with the contention that a federation board that either opposes or favors the Iran accord has “submerged” core Jewish principles “about the infinite value of human life and the responsibility to help repair a broken world for a political position.” In Chicago’s case most board members eschewed the political lens and staked their position precisely on the basis of their understanding of what was incumbent on them in light of those principles. Not everyone agrees on tactics, but there is hardly disagreement in the Jewish community concerning the overarching objectives, which are to safeguard America, Israel and the Jewish people. The problem in this highly charged, political era, is the difficulty of agreeing to disagree and the rush to demonize those who hold a different view.

As a Chicago federation donor and executive staff member, I was proud of the three-hour board meeting where the issue of Iran was raised, thanks to the quality of both the discussion and the relationship among individuals who respectfully agreed to disagree. That’s something that reflects and strengthens federation’s unique communal role.

This is a very cogent and timely discussion. To me, the critical question comes down to mission. What is Federation’s mission at the end? Is it to engage in political discussion and make a stand? Is it to engage in political discussion in order to educate but remain neutral? Is it to raise funds for social welfare and make our communities “more Jewish”? (whatever that is)

How much transparency should we expect from the federations in these votes? I am not sure how the Federation views itself, but as the largest fundraiser in each Jewish community, I’d guess they feel they represent the community, yet nobody elected them and there is not a single way to follow who pushed these resolutions–for or against JCPOA. At least in Congress, the votes are public.

I emailed a protest against my local Federation from taking a stand because I think it is outside the role of a non-political, supposedly neutral organization, but the message returned to me was that it was a vigorous debate and that was how it was decided. (To oppose). It has made me rethink how I want to support my Federation. At least the political organizations like AIPAC, J Street, and so on represent a point of view–but Federation does not nor should it, and I think this stance of many nationally will come back and hurt its efficacy and neutrality.

Looks like someone is pining away for the good old days without acknowledging the reality of the Federation world. How long do we have to watch the Federations sit in the pot on the burner and still refuse to jump out as they adjust to the new reality without making necessary changes to adapt to the new world? (We used to raise $4.3 million annually, now we are a $3.2 million community.)
The traditional Federation model has been dying for more than a decade and yet some still refuse to change and even fight change when it does come. In 2015 who wants to give to an organization whose mission is to raise money? We are not here to collect taxes, but to inspire our community to support us in addressing the challenges facing our communities, to Care for Jews in need, to Build Community, and to Ensure the Jewish future.
The reality is that everyone has their own concept of what Federation is and should be. But the only one that matters is that set by each board of directors. If they want to sit in the pot until they boil, then they will die and the community will move forward without them. True leadership adapts to change and leads with vision, looking forward not over the shoulder at the way we used to do things.
There is no more important issue affecting Israel’s security than the JCPOA. Both those who support the agreement and those who oppose it agree on that point, the only difference is whether they believe passing it or defeating it will be worse for Israel’s security. For Federations to remain silent in the face of the largest threat to israel in a generation would be the death of the organizations at it demonstrated how truly irrelevant they were.
Instead, rightly and smartly, many Federations took a stand. Perhaps some did so prematurely and perhaps many missed opportunities to demonstrate and exert their leadership of their communities. In this day when the Jewish community mirrors the American polity by becoming more split and less respectful of the views of others, what could be more important than convening different forums to bring together all those in the community who love Israel. By having a respectful discussion in which both sides are heard, perhaps each might not only listen to the other, but come to understand that both come to their views honestly and with a deep love of the Jewish homeland.
That isn’t to say any community would come to a consensus, after all, we are Jews. If we waited for consensus we would never take action and we would accomplish so much less. But sometimes the process is more important than the decision. And there will always be those disappointed with our decisions, but if they have been part of the process then they will most likely stay at the table and continue to fight for what they believe is right.
Let us resolve to learn from this fight, to prepare to debate and discuss the most important issues of our day, and to not only be relevant but to take our places as the natural leaders of our communities, as so many Jews expect of their Federation.

Federations have taken many stands on political issues. Be it in the US or expressing concern over religious issues in israel. The proposed Iran agreement has an element that none of the other issues do, it’s Pikuach a Nefesh. It’s an actual threat to the lives of millions of Jews and the United States. It’s far more important than any issue that JFNA or any local Fedration has taken a stand on.

Such a crucial isssue is exactly the time Federations can be relevant, by having courage to take a stand they show they have leadership.

It is my understanding that charities, which Federations are, will loose their tax exempt status if they engage in political issues. Enough said.

Primary Sidebar

Join The Conversation

What's the best way to follow important issues affecting the Jewish philanthropic world?
Our Daily Update keeps you on top of the latest news, trends and opinions shaping the landscape, providing an invaluable source for inspiration and learning.